Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:03, 2 September 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about editors' personal beliefs about global warming at the Reference desk.

Subpages:

• /sides in the GW controversy

Archives
February 2003 – December 2004 December 2004 – February 2007 Febraury 2007 – March 2007

causes

another potential cause that has been recently identified is

"A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf

"The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols . However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."

It would be good to add something about it under (potential) causes. LetterRip 05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

LetterRip, I agree. One of the problems with the AGW groupthink is the lack of acknowledgement of natural climate variability. Global temps go up and down over time. This peer-reviewed research is another in a line (see Bratcher and Giese 2004) that shows PDO looms large in natural variability. RonCram 01:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim Ball

I'm removing the characterization of Tim Ball as being a critic who denies that the Earth has warmed significantly, due to the following statement he made in an interview in May: "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that. I've never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO₂ being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (it's at about 15:30 into the audio interview).

I'm also tweaking the article to remove any idea that there's still a scientific controversy about whether the Earth is even getting warmer, due to the lack of any remaining notable climate scientists who still believe that the Earth isn't even getting warmer. MrRedact 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing him is probably an improvement just because Ball seems like more and more of a nutjob, on the fringe even for a skeptic. But he's lying in that quote, he certainly has debated whether there is warming, and he's done so recently:

• November 2004: "(The world's climate) warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling."
• August 2006: "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming."
• Feb 5, 2007: "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."

--Nethgirb 20:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just very bizzare. Maybe he adapts his message a bit to his audience at the time? MrRedact 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I copied the contradicting quote to the section http://en.wikipedia.org/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Believe_global_warming_is_not_occurring page LetterRip 05:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just seen "Swindle," and from the graph therein presented (which I hear has been shown to be relevent up to only 1988, I think) it seems that global temperature took a dip for about forty years before starting to rise again. When he said in 2004 "it has cooled down" does he mean that it cooled down for a period of forty years, or does he mean that it is cooler now in 2004? Perhaps he meant simple, as he said, "it has cooled down," which it did do up to the late 70's? I mean if he said "it has cooled down and then from the late seventies it has heated up again" he would be right, and that is what he seems to believe from the quote below. --Timtak 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Who knows what he meant. But note that TGGWS graph is junk. A better one is Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png. And from that, "cooling from 1940" is wrong - the obvious reading is warming from 1950 with after a 10-y warm blip centered around 1940. But there is no need to press that interpretation - mostly what I'm saying is don't trust TGGWS graph, even the - ahem - corrected one William M. Connolley 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another interpretation could be that global temperature fell dramatically around 1940 and did not rise back to the 1940 level until about 1979 -- almost 40 years later. At the same time this cooling occurred, anthropogenic CO2 was rising rapidly, as industrial production went into full gear during with WWII. Also when the globe was warming from 1910 to 1940, industrial production was meager; autos weren't even widely used until about 1920, after Henry Ford pioneered mass production in a modern factory; and that was primarily in the U.S. A reasonable person might conclude that there is a less than perfectly linear relationship between CO2 and global warming, at least during periods of similar length. Oh yeah clearly Tim Ball has no credibility.

Freedom Fan 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable person might conclude that there is a less than perfectly linear relationship between CO2 and global warming - well I certainly would - does that make me reasonable? William M. Connolley 08:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's test the hypothesis that you are reasonable: Is it possible that a similar 40 year respite could be starting right now? Similarly do you believe that the governments of the world will ever repeal their economy-destroying carbon tax gravy train even if we experience a prolonged cooling period? Freedom Fan 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost anything is "possible" but I believe not. Do you want to bet on cooling? Thought not William M. Connolley 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty good correlation between Sun variations and temperature rise for the first half of the 20th century. The cooling between the 1940-1970s is said to be because of sulphate aerosols, but neglects similar cooling in the Southern Hemisphere where sulphate emissions were minimal compared to the North. It's hard to measure the Sun's impact on the 1980s-current warming because of multiple factors, such as ozone depletion in the stratosphere, etc., but most will agree anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary cause. ~ UBeR 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New research from Roy Spencer

Dr. Spencer has just published an article in Geophysical Research Letters which should be discussed here. The research calls into question a key component of global warming theory which may change the way climate models are programmed to run. Global warming theory predicts a number of positive feedbacks which will accelerate the warming. One of the proposed feedbacks is an increase in high-level, heat trapping clouds. Spencer's observations in the tropics actually found a strong negative feedback. This observation was unexpected and gives support to Richard Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming." Spencer expects the finding to be controversial. Under what section should this be discussed? RonCram 11:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that Pielke has blogged on Spencer's paper. Pielke notes that Spencer's work is in line with the work of Dr. De-Zheng Sun from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory who concluded “The models tend to overestimate the positive feedback from water vapor in El Nino warming” and “The models tend to underestimate the negative feedback from cloud albedo in El Nino warming.” Dr. Sun's study is not yet published but his PowerPoint presentation can be found here. RonCram 13:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just found a blog entry by Spencer on Pielke's blog. It is an interesting discussion of feedbacks and how they are diagnosed. I am certain this will also be controversial in climate science. RonCram 13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Spencer himself acknowledges that he does not know if the results apply to global warming, and since we already acknowledge uncertainties of cloud-based feedbacks, there is nothing to add. If the result solidifies and we have a reliable source that discusses the overall effect for global warming, we integrate the result. I'm a bit sceptic in this case - my question is why climate models are as good as they are at reproducing current warming if they model this effect incorrectly and it is significant. --Stephan Schulz 14:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, is Pielke a scientist in a climate related field? Knowing that he is not, why would we even bring him up here, unless it is about political/vested interest motivations? --Skyemoor 12:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"...expects the finding to be controversial" explicitly means that it isn't controversial (at least for the moment), and doesn't need to be included in the article. Jcc1 08:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not yet persuaded that it does not deserve to be in the article. Spencer's paper relates only to the tropics, but that is a large region and will have an affect on global temperatures even it if it not found to happen at other locations. Plus, Spencer's conclusion that the models overestimate the warming from high-level clouds is confirmed by Dr. Sun's research. This is contrary to the status quo and is automatically controversial. However, we may want to wait until Dr. Sun's paper is published. RonCram 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we do not have to wait for Dr. Sun's paper. I just found another peer reviewed paper (this one by Karner) stating that climate is dominated by negative feedbacks. He states:

The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Journal of Geophysical Research RonCram 11:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

New research by Stephen Schwartz

Stephen Schwartz of the Environmental Sciences Department/Atmospheric Sciences Division of Brookhaven National Laboratory has just released a preprint of an article accepted for publication by Journal of Geophysical Research titled "Heat Capacity, Time Constant and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System." Quote:

ABSTRACT. The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth's climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean, obtained from regression of ocean heat content vs. global mean surface temperature, GMST, is 14 ± 6 W yr m-2 K-1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17 ± 7 W yr m-2 K-1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880-2004 to be 5 ± 1 yr. The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2. For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2.

Schwartz goes on to say that the value found for climate sensitivity is well below the current estimates as publicized by the IPCC. RonCram 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Schwart is wrong: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html William M. Connolley 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

blogs are now reliable sources? Anastrophe 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not adding it to the article page, so I don't see a problem. The point is that this well-written blog (a) underscores some flaws in Schwartz's article, and (b) leads one to believe that an official rebuttal (or even a retraction from Schwartz, who by all accounts is well-intentioned) might be soon forth-coming. Ben Hocking 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The blog is as reliable as a quote from its author. I've never understood why people think publication in blog format is different in terms of reliability than publication in any other venue without editorial control. --Nethgirb 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki uses blogs. In this case, though, the question is whether an untested newly published piece should be included. This is inevitably a value judgement. My judgement is that it should be left out. JA is certainly correct that S has got his uncertainty ranges wrong, which means that (using the rest of S's stuff) his values for sensitivity overlap the "official" ones. He is very likely right about the timescales too, in which case the entire thing falls apart William M. Connolley 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

William, if this were the Global warming article I could agree with you. However, this is the Global warming controversy article. And, as we have discussed before, it is not right for you (an advocate for one side of the controversy) to decide what information the other side of the controversy decides is controversial. Since this article has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, I rather favor the reviewers over the blog you cite. There is no question this research by Schwartz should be in this article. The only questions have to do with where it should be discussed and how much space should it be given. RonCram 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron, is your argument that any and every peer-reviewed article should be mentioned here? Raymond Arritt 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, no. It is my argument that pro-AGWers (such as William and you) cannot decide what information is appropriate to represent the anti-AGW side of the controversy, just as you would not want me to decide what information the pro-AGW side can put forward for their side of the controversy. It is foundational that each side gets to determine and express their own positions. If others from the anti-AGW side disagree with me that this should not be part of the article, then I could accept that. RonCram 05:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, Misplaced Pages is not a forum in which you (as a representative of the "anti-AGW side") select which sources you wish to emphasize to make your case. WP:WEIGHT should be assigned to these primary sources on the basis of their acceptance among experts in the field, as demonstrated by reliable secondary sources. There's a reason why WP:NOR cautions against citing primary sources in isolation - they are too easy to cherry-pick. MastCell 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I think you misunderstand WP:NOR. Peer-reviewed publications are not "primary sources." Primary sources include first hand lab notes or field notes made by the researcher. Peer-reviewed publications are "secondary sources" because they analyze data and draw conclusions. The papers also have to be reviewed by others who are not close to the research and so not a "primary source." In general, the pro-AGW side is well represented in various articles on Misplaced Pages. There is a strong feeling these articles are not NPOV. Since Misplaced Pages has decided to have an article on "global warming controversy," the anti-AGW side, at the very minimum, needs to be able to define its own position. RonCram 05:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, on scientific topics, original research papers written by the authors reporting their own results are primary sources. Secondary sources are review articles, textbook chapters, expert committee or organizational recommendations, etc which summarize and synthesize a number of primary sources. This is spelled out in WP:MEDRS, for example, and it also makes sense intuitively - the importance of individual studies and papers is appropriately determined by experts in the field, not by individual editors selecting them to advance a point. MastCell 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the argument that the "anti-AGW side" needs space to define its arguments without interference goes against the basis of WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages does not re-fight debates; it's not a place for each side to "put its best foot forward" in debate. Misplaced Pages characterizes debates; therefore, as WP:WEIGHT indicates, significant minority views (such as the "anti-AGW view") are described in the context of their acceptance by the mainstream, not in isolation. MastCell 06:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MC has got it right here. We are all working towards the common goal of making the article accurately document the global warming controversy. Ideally, as editors, we should be objective rather than taking sides; and certain editors don't have editorial privledges over certain parts of the article just because of the views they hold. --Nethgirb 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I previously suggested this guideline: Only include opinions/arguments that have been expressed by two or more independent notable sources. The hope is to weed out tiny minority opinions since we just don't have space; and I think this would also be useful in filtering (using WMC's words) untested newly published results. --Nethgirb 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell and Nethgirb, where are you getting this viewpoint that peer-reviewed research is precluded? Certainly not from common practice as peer-reviewed research is cited all the time. Certainly not from WP:NOR because it does not mention peer-reviewed papers. It mentions lab notes and field notes. Here is a quote that provides first principlees:

Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Misplaced Pages must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.

Journal of Geophysical Research is a reliable publication. Even Stephen Schwartz could cite his work on Misplaced Pages now that it has been published.

Regarding the second point, perhaps I did not express myself well earlier. I am trying to put Misplaced Pages readers first here. This is not about me trying to win the global warming science argument. That argument will eventually be decided (in favor of one side or the other) by the science. This article is supposed to present to students and others both sides of the scientific debate regarding global warming. If the article does not present both sides, it is not NPOV. When you have editors on one side who feel strongly that their position is the right one scientifically, then they cannot see the point the other side is trying to make. Also, if scientific papers from one side are ignored in order to try to maintain the viewpoint that no scientific debate exists, that is also POV. A scientific debate exists and more peer-reviewed anti-AGW papers are being published all the time. It is essential that this article includes peer-reviewed papers that discuss the scientific uncertainty around global warming. RonCram 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ron. Mind if I chime in?

There is a political controversy over whether there is still any scientific debate over global warming. Among college-educated U.S. voters, there is a 50-50 split over "what the science says". Democrats believe (75% or 3 out of 4) that there is no scientific debate and that the science supports AGW theory. Only 1 out of 4 Republicans (23%) agrees with that position.

The whole problem, all along at Misplaced Pages, about describing the global warming controversy, is that the Environmentalist side (which supports Kyoto) insists that there is no controversy, while the other side (Kyoto opponents) insists that "the science is not settled" and that there is significant controversy within science itself about it.

The disputing parties can't even disagree on how much support each side has. Perhaps one (or both?) sides is hoping to profit from the bandwagon effect. If they can convince the undecided that "everyone is on this side", they can get people to jump on the bandwagon.

Anyway, what we need to do at Misplaced Pages is to summarize each side's argument. What precisely is the side claming? What evidence do they give for there claims? Who else agrees? --Uncle Ed 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As important as US opinion is in this context; I feel that it may be misleading to use it to see how much weight any given side has specially since other countries seem to be leaning towards understanding that there is a consensus. Brusegadi 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for chiming in. It is true that some people claim there is no scientific debate. Whether this is political posturing or just being uninformed, I do not know. The issue would have to be decided on a person by person basis, but I do not want to judge motives. Misplaced Pages is supposed to inform people of the facts without unduly pushing one POV. Keeping out scientific research that supports the anti-AGW position is not NPOV. RonCram 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who does not support the Kyoto Protocol, but who thinks the science is settled (and that AGW is real and a problem), I'm going to have to disagree with you, Ed. Ben Hocking 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit similar to the case discussed here. You don't want to include "the latest breaking news" in wiki articles, because often it is wrong. What happens is that the fact that a certain result is "breaking news" (in the public media, the blogosphere, not the scientific community) at all is precisely because it contradicts established science, making it highly likely that it is flawed. The problem one faces is then that the wiki rules for Original Research would make it difficult to include such a result in a acceptable way. Count Iblis 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

CountIblis, thank you for joining in. I am uncertain of your exact view though. I agree that a newspaper article about a scientist's claim of a new discovery may be problematic because it could be a complete hoax. However, if I understand your comment correctly ("not the scientific community") you do not seem to have the same problem with a peer-reviewed paper. Or is it your view that WP:NOR precludes citing peer-reviewed papers? If that is your understanding, I ask you to reread WP:NOR. RonCram 16:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BenHocking, the Kyoto protocol does not enter my thought process here at all. The question is: If you believe the "science is settled," how can you trust your own judgment about scientific papers that disagree with your view? Whenever you see scientific papers come out that are contrary to the AGW view, is it your goal to suppress them? Or, are you willing to allow Misplaced Pages readers to read about the science so they can decide for themselves? The only way this article can become NPOV is for the science of the dissenters to be aired. Don't you agree? RonCram 16:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The larger issue is this: there are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research articles on global warming. New ones are published almost daily. How does Misplaced Pages decide which, of these innumerable primary source peer-reviewed articles, are notable enough for inclusion? RonCram is proposing, if I understand correctly, that individual editors (preferably those of a particular POV) should pick and choose which journal articles deserve mention. I would argue that the heart of WP:NOR is that the scientific community of experts, rather than individual Wikipedians, should guide us as to which articles are notable and deserve particular mention. The scientific community's opinions on such matters are best found in secondary sources - that is, expert panel recommendations, review articles, textbook chapters, organizational position statements, etc. MastCell 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, you write "there are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research articles on global warming." While this may be true, it is irrelevant. We are talking about articles relating to "global warming controversy." A good many articles on global warming (I would say most) are non-controversial. An article like the one by Schwartz is controversial because it reaches a very different conclusion about climate sensitivity than current estimates. The question really is: "Do we allow editors like William Connolley (a strong supporter of AGW) to decide what information students and others can learn about the scientific debate about global warming?" I would suggest that you would not want me to write the main article on global warming because I think the science backing it is flawed. In the same way, you would not want William Connolley to decide what points from the anti-AGW scientific viewpoint are valid. To be honest, I do not understand why this concept is difficult to follow. RonCram 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron, please read WP:WEIGHT. Then re-read what you have just written above. Then read cognitive dissonance. Raymond Arritt 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, okay I reread them. What is your point? Are you trying to say there are no peer-reviewed papers against AGW? Are you unaware that a growing number of skeptical scientists are making their views known and publishing peer-reviewed papers? RonCram 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on Raymond's comment, Ron, you're suggesting that papers which reach minoritarian conclusions are inherently more notable and deserve special mention, as opposed to the large volume of "non-controversial" evidence. WP:WEIGHT would suggest the exact opposite. MastCell 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that non-controversial evidence is due more weight on an article about the controversy than controversial evidence? Ben Hocking 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I have to agree with Ben Hocking. Non-controversial global warming information is summarized in numerous articles on Misplaced Pages. In addition, Politics of global warming has its own article. This is the one article devoted to the controversy regarding global warming science. If Misplaced Pages readers want to learn what elements of global warming science are debated, they should be able to find it here. What is the point of having this article if all of the pro-AGW editors vote to suppress peer-reviewed research that is contrary to their position? I would suggest you read WP:WFTE. It is not a guideline but it is a fine essay. If you cannot write in a way to explain another camp's position, the least you can do is allow the camp to speak for itself. RonCram 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron, if I saw multiple papers in climatology journals disagreeing with the science, it would change my opinion that the science is settled. However, I don't see that. As for a paper (in any reputable peer-reviewed journal) that challenges part of AGW, my goal is definitely not to suppress them, in general. (This would also be true if it were multiple papers.) OTOH, if it's a brand-new paper and there's reasonable expectation that it will be retracted, then I don't think it belongs on Misplaced Pages. That said, this same rule should be applied to the other side of the argument (or any side of any argument). So, hold on to this argument (however one does such things), and if you see a situation in reverse, you should definitely bring up the conflicting standards. Unlike others, I do not feel that WP:WEIGHT, however, necessarily applies to brand-new research in an article like this one (i.e., not focused exclusively on the science). Ben Hocking 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How much controversy has that particular paper caused in the political arena. In order to be included that paper should have enough weight within the science community (I leave the determination of that to those of you who have followed that closely) and how much political controversy it has caused. On the second, I have not heard much about it but I may be mistaken. Ciao, Brusegadi 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Hocking, I appreciate your statement that you would not attempt to suppress peer-reviewed papers even if they were contrary to your position. I wish more in your camp were of the same attitude. Regarding your view that this paper may be retracted, I do not see that as a likely possibility. The paper has already gained the support of Roger A. Pielke and several other scientists. Pielke is highly esteemed by climatologists on both sides of the debate. Regarding your advice, I do not see how bringing up conflicting standards would be successful. For example, Pielke and his co-authors have already refuted Peterson's 2006 paper and Parker's paper yet these papers are still firmly relied on in many Misplaced Pages articles. The most I have been able to accomplish is to get the Misplaced Pages articles to mention that Pielke has published peer-reviewed articles which do not agree with Peterson and Parker. Naturally, I would not attempt to stop anyone from linking to a reliable source that disagreed with the paper by Schwartz. That is what an article about "global warming controversy" is about - providing to readers the science behind both sides of the debate. It is unfortunate that the pro-AGW camp are attempting to suppress this peer-reviewed article. RonCram 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, the Schwartz paper has created a great deal of interest and publications in both the scientific and political realms. Lots of bloggers are talking about it. You can find them by googling "Schwartz" and "climate sensitivity" on the same line. Pielke blogged on it here from a science perspective. A US Senator's office blogged on it from a political POV. RonCram 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the HO-83 Hygrothermometer

Stephen McIntyre has just posted on the HO-83. In the early 1990s, USHCN began changing weather station instruments over to the HO-83. Numerous peer-reviewed studies documented the warm bias this instrument change caused, including at the infamous Tucson weather station run by the University of Arizona Department of Atmospheric Sciences. The Tucson station is built on top of a parking lot and shows the greatest warming of all stations in the USHCN. Now it seems this artificial warm bias is not due just to the poorly sited station but also to the change to the HO-83. One peer-reviewed study says "the HO-83 maximum temperature readings at Tucson were probably too warm by 1-2 deg C on sunny, light wind days." McIntyre lists eight different peer-reviewed articles that discuss the warm bias caused by this change in instruments. There are so many controversies here it is difficult to discuss them all. First, we have no indication NASA GISS has adjusted for this warm bias. Second, NASA GISS does not release its data, methods and code so others can check their work and determine if this was handled correctly. Third, was this instrument change done intentionally to create a warm bias in the record? Fourth, was the warm bias left intentionally uncorrected to allow the warm bias to remain in the record? A degree or two here and there introduced over a period of time creates a step-wise warming bias. This is a controversy that will not go away until NASA GISS releases all of the data, methods and code (just as the new "America COMPETES Act" requires). RonCram 04:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Watts has commented on the HO-83 saying: Given that the problem went undetected for 4 years in Tucson, and the high temperature records there stand, it stands to reason that the HO-83 has contaminated part of the USHCN and GISS record in other instances for perhaps as long or longer. RonCram 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This just a local US problem or are these things widely used? --BozMo talk 05:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, it is unclear how widely used they were in the 1990s. Some of them were exported. According to Anthony Watts, the ASOS Hygrotherm (the newer version Raymond mentioned above) is used in only 64 of the current 1221 USHCN stations. The HO-83 was used for a number of years. Comrie's paper was evidently written in 2000 and the HO-83 seemed to still be in use in Tucson. What is intriguing here is Hansen's 2001 adjustment raising US temps in the 1990s by 0.3C when he obviously knew the network had a warm bias from the HO-83. These adjustments (especially when Hansen will not turn over his data, methods and code like a scientists should) seem ripe for mischief. This is a big part of the controversy. RonCram 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very old news and well-documented. Problems with HO-83 bias due to poor ventilation were recognized fairly quickly, back the early to mid-90s I think, and the instrument was redesigned to greatly improve ventilation (denoted HO83m or something like that). One must be careful to note replacement of the HO-83 with the HO-83m, as failure to do so can produce an erroneous cooling trend since the warm bias is removed. It's curious that some folks seem to be interested in errors of only one sign and not the other... Raymond Arritt 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you are not thinking this through clearly. When a warm bias is introduced from bad instruments, two things need to happen: Instrumentation needs to be upgraded and the warm bias needs to be adjusted out. When the new instrument is introduced, there is no "cool bias"- only a restoration to normal temps. If one were to adjust for a "cool bias" because of a change to a more accurate instrument, you would be restoring the warm bias in the record. I hope this clears it up for you. RonCram 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what Raymond is saying is that the HO83 had a known bias of, say, B. So, they would adjust their data by 'subtracting' B from their recordings. If you begin to use the HO83m you no longer have the bias of B. So, you have to be careful to not subtract N from HO83m because if you do you end up introducing a bias of -N. Brusegadi 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, the problem is that there is no evidence GISS ever adjusted for the warm bias to begin with. It is erroneous to claim a "cooling bias" if the warm bias was never adjusted. RonCram 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not so. You'll get a spurious warming trend when you introduce the faulty thermometers, and an equally spurious cooling trend when you replace them with good ones. The temperature will be ok afterwards, but the trend is still wrong (as e.g. in "there has been no warming since 1998" ;-). --Stephan Schulz 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a usenet discussion. Without sources, you cannot edit the article, so the discussion is irrelevant. Take it to a blog somewhere William M. Connolley 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

William, you deleted a section because it did not advance the article. Fair enough. By why leave Stephan's comment which also does not advance the article and is demonstrably wrong? RonCram 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

restructuring

I've reverted the recent set of edits by 4.246.206.171. I think the restructuring only made the article more disorganized, and there's no need to label each person a "skeptic" when this is clear anyway from context. If you disagree please discuss. --Nethgirb 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all clear from the context which is "Funding for promoters of the theory". Do you actually think that the fact that every one of those seemingly average and objective "climate scientists" is actually a global warming skeptic is not relevant to their statements that people 'like them' studying the issue are really in it for the money? Why of course it is! The problem is that most people coming to that section are probably not going to know that because there is nothing there that reveals it. Also it's conceivable that people looking up info on GW will not read the whole article which, by the way, only mentions three of the six who comment in this section as skeptics (though of course they all are). For example, when John Christy says "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists" the average person probably won't know that though he appears to be speaking for promoters of AGW science with his use of the word "we", which implies that he is just another one of them, that he's actually not at all. This is a classic case of disinformation. At the very least a statement should be made that those making the claim that climate scientists are in it for the money are a handful of professional skeptics which are themselves on industry payroll. I'm going to put some kind of clarifier back in.

Also what I read here are losts of claims. Kind of a tit for tat for all the verifiable evidence that the promoters have accumulated to show that the skeptics are on the company dole. 4.246.201.150 06:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's worth pointing out at least once in that section. (Also, I agree that these are a bunch of unsubstantiated claims...but it's a notable part of the controversy that the claims have been made.) --Nethgirb 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

4, John Christy is a mainstream climate scientist and a contributing author to the IPCC. As such, he also benefits from the panic about global warming. It makes it easier for him to get funding for his satellite research. Christy is skeptical but is not one of the those who has taken money from the oil industry. Your claim that he is putting out disinformation is just false and contrary to WP:BLP. Most of the recent peer-reviewed research by skeptics is authored or co-authored by government scientists who have never taken money for the oil industry. They also have benefitted from the global warming panic. Climate studies are being funded now that never would have been funded before. RonCram 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

John Christy is a member of groups that are funded by big oil such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Independent Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, and the Heartland Institute. So in that sense he is being funded by them. As Integrity in Science says:

"The Associated Press ran a story that appeared in the Indianapolis Star and several other papers last week that cited global warming skeptic John Christy but failed to mention his long involvement with conservative think-tanks supported by money from the energy industry. In an article about the development of global warming "hot spots," AP cited Christy's belief that concerns about an increase in heat-wave related deaths due to climate change were without foundation. The widely used wire service identified Christy only as an atmosphere sciences professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, but did not note his frequent appearances and published work for the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Independent Institute - conservative think tanks that receive funding from ExxonMobil and other energy companies" . Also .

Funny that all these professional skeptics seem to be associated with rightwing think tanks? Like the old saying goes "If you lie down with dogs..." 4.246.207.63 05:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Christy is careful not to take money from or allow others in his research group to take money from oil companies. His research has never been funding by oil or coal. I typed Christy's last name into Integrity in Science and got nothing. I typed "global warming" as a topic and got 14 names. Many of these received funding years and years ago and have not taken a dime since. Your favorite topic - that skeptical scientists took money from the oil industry is out-of-date. It is not happening anymore yet the these scientists continue to be skeptical on global warming. Try digging up dirt on recent authors of skeptical peer-reviewed research, like this paper or this one or maybe this one. You are trying to beat a dead horse.RonCram 12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that he took money directly from oil companies. But then again, who knows? These things are rarely admitted upfront as in the case of Patrick Michaels or Michael Fumento (2006 in both cases ), etc. Maybe they're just being more careful these days. The Integrity site is not all encompassing as it says "Exclusion from the database should not be interpreted as the absence of corporate ties". Also, I am not claiming that all skeptics are funded by big energy. It's usually been just the big names with the biggest mouths connected with rightwing think-disinformation-tanks, or as the American Petroleum Institute proposed, "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists'" . If it wasn't happening anymore (and I'm not at all sure tht's the case) it might be because even Exxon is now admitting that AGW is occurring. However that is not reason to not document what disinformation they have contributed massively to. 4.246.206.184 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you have bought into the PR the alarmists want you to believe. Yes, Exxon/Mobil did fund some research years ago. But when it was used the damage the credibility of researchers, researchers began to refuse the money. None of the top climate skeptic researchers have taken money from big energy for years. Big energy also gave some money to some think tanks that held conferences and things but that is getting pretty far afield. For example, Cato Institute is interested in lots of different subjects and they get money from lots and lots of different people and organizations. It is pretty ridiculous to think Christy or other skeptical researchers should have known that some of the funding came from big energy. I do not know much about Marshall Institute or the others, but I would not be surprised if it was the same thing. As far as I know, these think tanks have not distorted the science as much as the IPCC has. You should read Pielke's blog on the IPCC's distortions if you want the facts. You talk as if ALL climate skeptics are on the take. You write: Maybe they're just being more careful these days. You are guilty of wishful thinking. You have no evidence to back your hopes. Most of the skeptics who have published recently are well-respected government scientists. Have you bothered to read any of the studies I linked to? RonCram 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are guilty of typical rightwing spin which is basically to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of contrary evidence. You say none of the top climate skeptic researchers have taken money from big energy for years, and later "You have no evidence to back your hopes" yet I just provided you a link to evidence that Patrick Michaels took $100,000 from an coal company as late as 2006 when it was discovered. Even Exxon has admitted that it funded 6 or 7 skeptic groups as late as 2006 (groups that it's very likely the big names in professional climate skepticism are associated with) though now it says it has cut ties to them. Of course there are still plenty of others to fill in the gap left by Exxon, as in Michaels case. What, you're not talking about the usual suspects, the Michaels and Singers etc? Well those are the ones which have dominated the skeptics side for a decade or so. Also, in searching I found that there were lots of other groups and individuals they funded as well such as the "Scientific Alliance" . The fact is that you don't know who may be funded by big energy with conflicts of interest but given that it still happens, as evidenced by the two examples I gave in my last comments, it's not outrageous to speculate that it may still be occurring. Cato Institute is interested in lots of different subjects and they get money from lots and lots of different people and organizations. Yes I know. Like Phillip Morris. It is pretty ridiculous to think Christy or other skeptical researchers should have known that some of the funding came from big energy. I do not know much about Marshall Institute or the others, but I would not be surprised if it was the same thing. Yeah right. They could not have possibly known even though it's been shouted from the rooftops for many years now. What do you take readers here for? Your excusal of deliberate disinformation by scientists and PR firms on the take with the statement, "As far as I know, these think tanks have not distorted the science as much as the IPCC has" speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned. 4.246.201.6 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be making a big deal about $15m or so provided by Exxon to sceptics. How about the $50bn provided by governments to pro-AGW scientists? Iceage77 08:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you see, that money, however much it actually is, goes to proponents (there happens to be a whole lot more pro-AGW scientists to fund because that's where the science is) and skeptics alike (as Christy and Lindzen could tell you). If you have a reasonable hypothesis for why some aspect of AGW is wrong you'll likely get the funding. That's how science works. Of course if the hypothesis just spouts already discredited ideas then one likely wont get the funding and he/she can then sulk off and whine about bias in the scientific establishment. That's a whole lot different from some industry which has a huge financial interest in a certain outcome of the debate funding professional skeptics to come to its conclusions. Its very much like the professional creation "scientists": they get funding from the donations of outside fundamentalist groups to find and publish reasons why they believe evolution theory is wrong. And they similarly complain about bias in science when they find they can't get their pet ideas published. I'm not going to claim that the system is perfect, that's rarely the case where humans are concerned, but it's a whole lot more objective than the Exxon method (which by the way was only one funder of the skeptics). 4.246.203.252 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This conversation started out as somehow relevant to the article, but it seems to have degenerated into an argument. Please read WP:SOAP. Brusegadi 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Apologies. 4.246.202.168 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize since nothing here is to be taken personally. If there are no objections, I recommend trimming this section to leave only what is relevant to the improvement of the article. Brusegadi 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Patrick Michaels has not published any peer-reviewed literature contrary to AGW for a long time. RonCram 04:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's this. Be sure to also read the rebuttal by Knutson and Tuleya. ("Michaels et al., exclusively emphasize uncertainties that lead to smaller future changes" gives an idea.) Raymond Arritt 05:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually theres a lot. I've narrowed the list down to 2004 - 2007 . Seems that he's jumping on that air conditioning/adaptation is a solution band wagon . To Brusegadi, agreed. I also think that the funding for skeptics section should be tidied up. Someone might also consider a separate page just on funding issues (I don't want to do it though). 4.246.200.70 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You narrowed the list from 2004-2005. Michaels has not published anything since 2005. The article Raymond linked is Michaels lastest (December 2005) and relates to a periperal issue of AGW and hurricanes, more Chris Landsea's area of expertise, and does not deal with any of the central issues of AGW. Michaels is not a major player in the AGW science debate. 4, attempting to sling mud at skeptical scientists publishing peer-reviewed science today by talking about how Exxon gave money to a minor player years ago is just bogus. I am not against Michaels being mentioned as taking money from Exxon, but let's not pretend this is some kind of wide spread practice by skeptical scientists. Remember WP:WEIGHT. RonCram 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Michaels has not published anything since 2005" I can't understand why you keep making these absolutist comments that are without foundation and easily checked out. See this article. So what's that publication date ... ah, yes, May of 2006. I also found some articles in Energy and Environment but I don't think that's peer reviewed. Perhaps he ended there when the money from Exxon dried up. These people (not just Michaels) deserve to have mud slung at them as they took money to obfuscate the issue and had they not we would most likely have been well along in the solutions phase. You may call them minor players but they played a big role, one which continues to echo and influence. And just because some may not be publishing in peer review journals does not mean that they've stopped using their name and credentials to continue to disinform in the popular press. Furthermore, it may well be continuing. 4.246.205.10 03:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I missed one. But again, the 2006 paper is about tropical storms and warming. It does not address any key issues of AGW. Michaels is not a key player in the AGW science debate. At one time Sherwood Idso was a key player in the science debate and he took money from big energy, but that is ancient history. In terms of the science debate, this is not a current issue. You are suggesting skeptics like Michaels could be using their influence to disinform the popular press. If you believe the article would be helped by showing some examples of this, then put some examples forward so we can discuss them. I think you are focused on this issue because you are looking for a reason to dismiss skeptical scientists rather than come to terms with the science. RonCram 04:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, as Brusegadi stated, I'm going to try not further turn the talk page into a debate. But if you doubt what I said about them using popular media, and recently, then look it up, it's there. They've made a name and they're still cashing in. No offense but suffice it to say that you've been reckless about just about everything you've said here. 4.246.205.10 05:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Talk page is about making the article better. We cannot edit the article without citations. I'm inviting you to provide citations you may want to use in the article so we can discuss if they are appropriate for inclusion or not. RonCram 05:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hint. There are at least two examples mentioned in the article. Here's one ... 4.246.207.156 14:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hint, you have to provide a source demonstrating that a particular comment was disinformation. RonCram 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No I don't. The link I provided is enough - i.e. hired guns are being used as sources for the popular media - they are still profiting from their ill gotten reputation as I stated. Furthermore I think it wise to consider any utterance from the mouth of such a scientist for hire as suspect. 4.246.204.62 04:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not shown that all of the people listed have taken money from big oil. You have not shown they are "hired guns." You have not demonstrated anything said was disinformation. All you have proven is that you are distrustful of all skeptics based on the fact "some" took money for their research. This is a logical fallacy. Come back after you have had a class in logic.RonCram 04:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So you have no problem with the fact that they are using scientists on the take. Fine. 4.246.204.62 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

4, I do not know anything about you except what you write here. I want to be respectful, but you seem to have trouble with facts and logic. I do have a problem with people who lie for money. You have not proven that anyone has done that. In years past, Idso and Michaels have taken money from big oil and published peer-reviewed research. I feel certain Idso regrets doing that and Michaels may. They regret it not because they actually said anything they did not believe, but because it gave people a reason to be suspicious of their motives. But you are trying to paint all skeptical scientists with this brush that they are "hired guns" putting out disinformation. You have not put forward any evidence other skeptical scientists are taking money and putting out disinformation. You are just assuming their guilt and putting out disinformation yourself. These comments of yours border on being slanderous. I ask you to respect WP:BLP.RonCram 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"you seem to have trouble with facts and logic" "you are trying to paint all skeptical scientists with this brush that they are "hired guns" putting out disinformation". Okay without prolonging this debate I think that you are having some comprehension problems here. I will C&P my previous comments again for you. "I am not claiming that all skeptics are funded by big energy. It's usually been just the big names with the biggest mouths connected with rightwing think-disinformation-tanks". I also said "The fact is that you don't know who may be funded by big energy with conflicts of interest but given that it still happens, as evidenced by the two examples I gave in my last comments, it's not outrageous to speculate that it may still be occurring". I stand by that. 4.246.200.53 06:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Shaviv

I feel that the new addition may not be appropriate per WP:RS. I mean, on one side we have a published paper (from what seems to be a highly regarded publisher) and on the other we have a blog. Is there a better source for Shaviv? I will not remove because I may be alone on this, but I do feel that a more reliable source is in order. Brusegadi 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am dubious about it. It isn't even S's blog, but Lubos reporting on S, and we don't even know he is doing so accurately. I would be inclined to remove/shorten William M. Connolley 08:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thats why I ask again, is there a better source for Shaviv? Otherwise, as it stands, the paragraph gives undue weight to a blog posting. Brusegadi 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - We have no way of validating if this really comes from Shaviv - and this fails all rules for WP:RS. WP:SPS exceptions do come into play here, as 1) Lubos is no expert by SPS 2) Lubos is citing someone else without a proper reference (instead of givin his own view) 3) Shaviv's own blog doesn't contain this. I suggest removal as well. (Nb: i've looked for this "memo" on the net - but cannot find anything except Lubos). --Kim D. Petersen 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with axing it for now - in general, this article needs better attention to quality sourcing and fewer such subpar sources. MastCell 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New entry on unexplained adjustments to temp record

The new entry reads:

While McIntyre was investigating the claim that GISS software was able to "fix" any problems with data due to poor quality stations, McIntyre found an error in the US surface temperature anomaly record kept by GISS. GISS has acknowledged the error and incorporated a correction in their data set. After the correction, the U.S. temperature record does not show a warming trend after World War II. McIntyre then began a series of blog postings based on "Where's Waldo?" detailing his search for a warming trend in the rest of the world (ROW). Some of these posts deal with unexplained adjustments by GISS.

Stephen McIntyre is the one who broke the hockey stick and discovered NASA's error. His statistical ability is well respected. If blogs are ever used to discuss the viewpoints of scientists, and they are, then ClimateAudit is a reliable source of McIntyre's views. This is a short entry and is not WP:WEIGHT.RonCram 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not particularly short, includes irrelevant details, and appears to be written only from McI's point of view. He found an error; ok, but was it significant? The claim "After the correction, the U.S. temperature record does not show a warming trend" is unreferenced. And who cares that M began a series of blog postings, and that he considers some adjustments "unexplained". All those factoids serve to show is that McI thinks there are problems with the temperature trend. But we already knew that. Yes, he is a prominent skeptic and his opinion is relevant—but his opinion on the topic, along with Pielke's, is already mentioned in a note of appropriate length. Quite frankly this reads like a list of McIntyre's personal gripes. --Nethgirb 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• One problem is that you do not write it up as McIntyre's POV, but use the neutral editorial voice. Your presentation is also uncritically repeating a POV. McIntyre found the discontinuity. His speculation about the error was total nonsense. Another problem is the original research in "After the correction, the U.S. temperature record does not show a warming trend after World War II.", which is pure baloney, and, so far, unsourced. Finally, you give undue weight to both McIntyre and, in particular, his cherry-picking "Waldo" campaign. CA maybe a borderline RS on McIntyre's POV, but it does not remotely qualify as a RS on anything else. --Stephan Schulz 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UclaimTC)

• Just to reiterate the problem with "After the correction, the U.S. temperature record does not show a warming trend after World War II", not even McIntyre is making this claim, AFAIK. That's pure POV from the editor. Ben Hocking 00:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan's point about the neutral editorial voice is well-taken. I welcome a change of wording and may take a stab at it myself. (As a side note, McIntyre was exactly right about the error he found, but this has nothing to do with this entry.) Regarding the U.S. not showing a warming trend, how can anyone deny that when the warmest year in the U.S. was 1934? This was exactly McIntyre's reason he began looking for a warming trend in the ROW. See this. RonCram 02:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed a few words to show this is McIntyre's POV. The key points are very succinctly stated. I do not think I can make any shorter without losing key facts.RonCram 03:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis) . Take a look at that graph 4.246.205.10 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the editors of these articles are aware the GISS calls 2005 the warmest year globally and that CRU says 1998 is the warmest year globally. The question is: Where is the warming happening if not in the U.S.? The CRU does nor archive data, methods or source code. The GISS does not release their source code but they do archive their data and provide sketchy details of their methods in peer-reviewed literature. Naturally, McIntyre and others have focused on the GISS data since that is available. RonCram 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Think harder. 4.246.205.10 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

4, I am sorry if you were not able to follow me. Everyone knows about the graph you posted. Do you understand how the temps from the surface network are turned into this graph? They use grid cells. The grid cells are 5 degrees by 5 degrees, little squares across the surface of the globe. It does not matter how many surface stations are in a particular grid, each grid is weighted equally. Global temperature is not uniform and neither are trends. The trend might be going up in one place and going down in another. McIntyre is looking for regions where the trend is up. The trend is not up in the US, Africa, South America, or Antarctica. Where he does find an upward trend, such as the former Soviet Union, he also finds a number of unwarranted (or as yet unexplained) adjustments. McIntyre cannot think of any physical theory that would explain the adjustments. GISS certainly has some explaining to do. RonCram 13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"The question is: Where is the warming happening if not in the U.S.?" ... "The trend is not up in the US"" What gives you that idea? . 4.246.207.156 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

4, here is the data you are looking for. Even the NCDC (a unit of NOAA and not NASA GISS) admit that 1934 was very warm. According to USHCNv2, 1934 comes in second place behind 1998 by 0.03C. But five of the top ten hottest years were in the 1950s or before. Not exactly the same kind of warming trend supported by the global graph you posted above. The temps in the 1990s and 2000s were very much in line with temps in the 1930s to the early 1950s. McIntyre has reposted some graphs of US historical temps put out by GISS (Hansen) in 1999 and 2001. In 1999, Hansen said 1934 was the warmest year. By 2001, Hansen made some "adjustments" to the temp record and 1998 is suddenly the warmest year. Then McIntyre found an error. GISS corrected it and now 1934 is the warmest year in their dataset. Check out the images here. Now, do you really see a warming trend in the U.S.? RonCram 20:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

When I see five of the top ten hottest years on record have been since 1990 I see a trend, but hey that's me. Note this comment, "Both data sets also show that the past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record". A quick read of the second link finds this, "While there are undoubtedly 'good' reasons for these adjustments (and I am not here arguing the point one way or the other), the net effect of the adjustments has been to consistently lower temperatures in the 1930s relative to more recent values". Fair enough. But I think you misunderstood. I was not contesting the 1934/hottest year issue which I think is kind of silly as we're talking about a difference so small that's it's well within the margin for error (and how do we know just how accurate those weather keepers and their instruments were in the 30s anyway and how well distributed?). Anyway, I was simply showing that the U.S. has been warming like much of the rest of the world (in general) in answer to your question "Where is the warming happening if not in the U.S.?" But I'll not belabor this issue as these types of arguments tend to go on and on. 4.246.204.62 03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is a disaster of WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Accordingly I've deleted the whole thing. Raymond Arritt 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, not true. Everything was sourced so it cannot be WP:OR. This is a discussion of a controversy, so it cannot be WP:SOAP. Since the article deals with a controversy around the science, it has to explain both sides or it is not WP:NPOV. (Note -NPOV is a good thing.) The article currently accepts the temp record uncritically when, in fact, this is a major part of the controversy. Since this is the only section on warming trends in the rest of the world, it cannot be said to be excessive WP:WEIGHT. We already know that ClimateAudit is a reliable source for McIntyre's views, so WP:RS does not apply either. Perhaps you should try WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RonCram 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I slept on it and I think I realize now why you think keeping this section would be POV. I think it is because the AGW side does not yet have a response to McIntyre's studies published from a RS. But that is no problem really. Just ask William Connolley to write something up on his blog responding to McIntyre's "Where's Waldo" series and then we can include the section and a response. It should not take William long to come up with a response. RonCram 13:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps Gavin at RealClimate will provide one.RonCram 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a lot more basic than that. I simply don't agree that McIntyre's every utterance is so deserving to be proclaimed from the rooftops that we can cast aside Misplaced Pages policies on undue weight, reliable sources, and the like. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you cannot prevent the skeptical viewpoint about unwarranted adjustments because of undue weight. The article does not deal with this issue anywhere. Nor does the article deal with the fact a warming trend is not observed in large areas of the globe. These are important facts in the debate. ClimateAudit is RS for McIntyre's views. Now, you may not like McIntyre, but his views are important to the scientific debate. When GISS has to make corrections because he found an error, that tells you he is doing something right. If you are not wanting space for a response (something I was willing to give), then I think you will need to go back to WP:IDONTLIKEIT because none of your other reasons hold any water.RonCram 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hansen's "Bias Method"

With unintended irony, Hansen has named one of his methods the "bias method" and described it in his 1987 paper. McIntyre examines his paper, Hansen's description of the method and compares the method to the more widely used "anomaly method." Hansen's "bias method" is not used in statistics and it appears Hansen has something in common with Michael Mann. Neither of them are statisticians, yet both have tried to innovate new statistical methods. Mann failed and it appears Hansen has as well. I think this should also be discussed in the section describing the controversy about unwarranted adjustments to the temp record. RonCram 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No Warming Trend in the U.S.

We should expand the section regarding the controversy around regional warming trends or lack of same. For evidence of no warming trend in the U.S., I suggest we use this image. Then we can discuss McIntyre's findings of no warming in Antarctica, Africa or South America supported by the links above. I am still hoping Connolley or Gavin Schmidt will write some kind of response to McIntyre to make the entry as NPOV as possible. However, the article should not have to wait an unreasonable period for a response. There is a possibility no one will try. After all, when McIntyre is right, he is right. RonCram 21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GW is not uniform. Why are you obsessed by the US? Try http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-9.htm if you're interested in the distribution of T trends. If McI can't find warming in S Am or Africa, then he has falsified the above picture, which would be interesting. And trends are too short to be in the above but there are definitely bits of it that are warming. But I'm not sure which bits of McI-ism you're referring to William M. Connolley 21:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I knew you were the right man for the job! I already volunteered you to write a rebuttal to McIntyre's "Where's Waldo" series. Where's Waldo:Antartica #1 Where's Waldo:South America Waldo in Africa Waldo in Bagdarin, Siberia Since there is no warming trend in the U.S., McIntyre went looking for it in the rest of the world (ROW). He cannot find a warming trend in Antarctica, Africa, South America and he finds unwarranted adjustments in places where the trend is found, such as the former Soviet Union. Would you please write a response to McIntyre and publish it on your blog so this article can link to it? :) RonCram 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. What interesting new things do you think McI has discovered about warming, or lack thereof, in Antarctica? As for S Am, he (and you) should look at the IPCC pic I supplied. Or if you want a regional average picture, then SPM 4 will be helpful. It seems to me that neither McI, nor you, are being serious, so I can't see why any of this should be included. Have you considered the Onion instead? William M. Connolley 22:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So you want me to help you write your blog posting? Did you bother to read the McIntyre posts? Let's start with Africa. Knowing that adjustments to the temp record can be problematic, what is the solid bedrock from which to begin? McIntyre chose to look at station histories in Africa with data from 1931 (so it picked up the warm period of the 30s) and ending after 1990 (so it would pick up recent warming). In an effort to avoid UHI, he selected only rural stations. His selection process yielded a grand total of 10 stations. Some of them had decades long gaps. Several of these stations show the 1930s to be warmer than the 1990s. Overall, they show the 1990s to be within normal climate variation with no consistent warming trend. If there is something wrong with McIntyre's thought process, the images he produced or the way he approached his search for a warming trend, you can point in out in your blog. I am certain McIntyre will provide you with his data, methods and source code if you request them. RonCram 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at data from small numbers of weather stations separately, then the signal from climate change will be burried in the natural fluctuations. Count Iblis 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a little puzzle for Ron (and anyone else who's watching). Let's suppose the world is divided into 10 regions. None of these regions have the present decade as its hottest period of the past century. Is it possible for the global mean temperature to have the present decade as its hottest period of the past century? Raymond Arritt 02:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I will be interested to see Ron's reply --Nethgirb 02:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, first it will depend on how the global mean temperature field is calculated and second on how you define "present decade" and "past century." First, if you use the current grid cell method, yes. It is possible the grid cells will show a warming trend where the larger regions do not. It would depend upon the distribution of the temperature stations. However, would you consider a warming trend to be robust if the regions as a whole do not show warming? Most likely not. Second, since the "present decade" is not a part of the "past century," I was uncertain if this was a trick question or not. You seemed to think you had something up your sleeve. But in my answer above, I presumed you were speaking in the normal sense of comparing the last ten years to the 20th century and answered accordingly. RonCram 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) :Not a trick question at all. Just a straightforward problem in arithmetic. Your response was... interesting. Raymond Arritt 04:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting? I thought it was fairly straight forward. How would you answer your own question? RonCram 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For a start, the "distribution of the temperature stations" is irrelevant. Do you see why? Raymond Arritt 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I take a stab at it? Yes, if taken together (the global mean) those ten years are the hottest decade of the past century. IOW, even if some areas are cool while others are warm or hot the average global temperature is warmer than any previous decade because more of those regions reported warmer temperatures than before. 4.246.204.62 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, no, the distribution is entirely significant. In McIntyre's approach, he took all of the stations with a country code of 200 or less, yielding all of Africa and a few islands. McIntyre then selected only the rural stations, but since this is a math problem - let's say all of the stations were long term stations (a pure fiction as we know) and most were high quality. So in the region, you have, say, 1000 stations in the Africa dataset. Now, if you took the land area for Africa and divided it up into grid cells, how many would you have? I am too lazy to figure it out right now, but let's guess 200. Now let's say 80% of Africa's surface stations are in just 20 grid cells. Then we would know a couple of things. 1. The climate trend (if any) in those 20 grid cells would be far more robust than in the remainder of the continent. 2. We would also know only about 200 surface stations are available to provide data for the remaining 180 grid cells. If these 200 stations and 180 grid cells have problems at the microsite (see Pielke's photos of African surface stations), then a warming bias is introduced. So when you look at regional database of 1000 African stations, you do not see a warming trend. However, when you look at the grid cell data, you see 20 grid cells that are not warming and 180 that are warming. So is the warming trend robust? Not at all. So, you see, it is completely about the distribution of the temperature stations. RonCram 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

CountIblis, McIntyre's approach was an attempt to find a warming trend among the very best station records. He selected rural stations covering from 1931 to 1990, even if they had gaps. With no trend present among the best stations, any warming trend found in Africa appears to be the result of adjustments to the temperature record and not from measurements themselves. See the section above about Hansen's "Bias Method." It explains how Hansen adjusts the long term records using shorter term records. When you understand how this is done, you can see the potential for error and mischief is quite large.RonCram 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Ron's answer gets approximately the same grade as this one --Nethgirb 09:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL Nethgirb! I've seen that clip. The best description I heard was that the question "stupefied" her. I would agree. If she wasn't completely lacking in sensibility prior to the question, then the question must have done the trick. Ok, Nethgirb. It's your turn. Raymond refused to answer. Let's see if you are up to the challenge.RonCram 15:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Goddard Institute of Space Science
2. Will the Real USHCN Data Set Please Stand Up?
3. GISS Datasets and Images
4. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1985 Where's Waldo:Antartica #1
5. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1992 Where's Waldo:South America
6. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1982 Waldo in Africa
7. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2000 Waldo in Bagdarin, Siberia

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics